$________ GROSS – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – AUTO/MOTORCYCLE COLLISION – HEAD TRAUMA – TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY – MULTIPLE ORTHOPEDIC INJURIES – 12% COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE FOUND.

Miami-Dade County, FL

This action involved a collision between the defendant’s vehicle and a motorcycle operated by the 24-year-old plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the accident was caused by the defendant’s negligence in pulling out of a driveway to make a left turn and violating the plaintiff’s right-of-way. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle in the wrong (opposing) lanes of traffic and the defendant could not avoid the impact.

On March 16, ________, the defendant was the owner and operator of a ________ Honda CRV motor vehicle and was driving near the intersection of SW 67th Avenue and SW 32nd Terrace in Miami, Florida. The plaintiff maintained that he was riding his motorcycle northbound in the left northbound lane of S.W. 67th Avenue when the defendant’s vehicle pulled out of a driveway, entered the left northbound lane and caused the collision. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant violated his right-of-way and that damage to the driver’s side of the defendant’s vehicle, as well as other evidence from the accident scene, supported his version of the collision.

The plaintiff was a college student and worked as a “food runner” at a restaurant at the time of the collision. He was diagnosed with a skull fracture, concussion and multiple orthopedic injuries, including fractures of the patella and nose, as a result of the impact. The plaintiff remained in a coma for three weeks after the accident and spent months in the hospital and a rehabilitation center. The plaintiff claimed that he has been left with a permanent debilitating traumatic brain injury.

The defense argued that an eyewitness placed the plaintiff’s motorcycle driving northbound in one of the southbound lanes of S.W. 67th Avenue when he collided with the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to avoid the collision and there was nothing the defendant could do to avoid it. The defense also argued that the plaintiff would not have sustained the serious head injuries if he had been wearing a motorcycle helmet. Paramedics reported that the plaintiff’s helmet was found on the ground at the accident scene. However, the defense maintained that he was not wearing it or it was not properly fastened at the time. In addition, defendant disputed the extent and nature of the injuries which the plaintiff claimed to have sustained as a result of the accident.The jury found the defendant 88% negligent and the plaintiff 12% comparatively negligent. The plaintiff was awarded gross damages of $________, reduced accordingly.